26/10/2009 1

Zero Emission fossil fuel Power plants

Country profile
BELGIUM
26/10/2009

Introduction
This document contains a short summary of the national current situation
with respect to Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants. It aims to support
the taskforces of ETP-ZEP.

Information sources used for this profile are:

- [1] Report on the study Policy Support System for Carbon Capture and Storage (PSS - CCS) 269 p.
http://www.belspo.be/belspo/ssd/science/FinalReports/Reports/PSS-CCS_FinRep_2008.DEF.pdf
- [2] Impact of the EU Energy and Climate Package on the Belgian energy system and economy, Study
commissioned by the Belgian federal authorities, the three regional authorities and the Federal Planning
Bureau – WP 21-08, November 2008, 120 p.
http://www.plan.be/publications/Publication_det.php?lang=en&TM=45&IS=71&KeyPub=763&Type=21
- [3] Prospective study on electricity (draft) – FPS Economy, SMEs, Self-employed and Energy & Federal
Planning Bureau (in French and in Dutch)
- [4] BELGIUM’S GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (1990-2007) National Inventory Report submitted under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, April 2008, 148 p.
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.
php
- [5] IEA, 2006 Energy Policies of IEA Countries - Belgium- 2005 Review, 204 p.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1597
- [6] Report by Belgium on the assessment of projected progress under Decision No 280/2004/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring
Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, 15 May 2009, 74 p.
- [7] Fédération Pétrolière Belge, Rapport annuel 2008, 65 p.
http://www.petrolfed.be/common/rapports/rapport_annuel_2008.pdf
- [8] FEBEG Rapport Annuel 2008, 22 p.
http://www.febeg.be/content/default.asp?PageName=OpenDoc&DocID=7568
- [9] Le marché de l’énergie en 2007. SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et énergie. 138 p.
[http://economie.fgov.be/fr/consommateurs/Energie/Politique_energetique/Contexte_Belge/Nationale_ene
rgiebalansen/index.jsp]
- [10] Christensen N.P. & Holloway S., 2003. GESTCO - Geological Storage of CO2 from Combustion of Fossil
Fuel – European Union Fifth Framework Programme for Research & Development Project No. ENK6-CT-
1999-00010. Final report.
- [11] Luc Van Nuffel : CCS, a major challenge and opportunity for GDF SUEZ. EURELECTRIC Annual
Convention & Conference, Bucharest 15-16 June 2009.
- [12] Emmanuelle Bertrand: Carbon Capture and Sequestration:GDF SUEZ activities. 5th Electrabel
Environmental Day, Linkebeek, June 11th, 2009
- IEA statistics.

This country profile was written by a national task force made up of:
- MH Novak, Marianne Desmet, Gabriel Michaux, Nancy Mahieu, Marc Deprez, Bernard Picron, Joke
Coopman (Federal Energy Department)
- Kris Piessens & Kris Welkenhuysen (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Geological Survey of
Belgium)
- Dominique Gusbin (Federal Planning Bureau)
- Alain Stephenne (Energy Department of the Walloon Region)
- Sophie Verheyden (Belgian Federal Science Policy Office)
- Wouter Stroobants and Jan Haers (Environment, Nature and Energy Department of the Flemish Region)
- Geological Survey of Belgium)
- Etienne Hannon (Federal Environment Department)
- Grégoire Clerfayt (Energy Department of the Brussels Region)
- Frank Arnauts (Permanent Representative of Belgium to the EC)

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 2

1 Background information
1.1. Description of the administrative context [5]
Belgium is a constitutional monarchy that, as a result of five successive revisions of the Constitution (in 1970,
1980, 1988–89, 1993 and 2001), has become a federal State composed of three Communities (the Flemish
Community, the French-speaking Community and the German-speaking Community) and three Regions (the
Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region). The Communities correspond to
population groups based on language (Dutch, French and German, all three of which are official languages).
The Regions are defined on a territorial basis. The Federal level is responsible for the North Sea territory (in
blue in Figure 1).

Plateau continental
En Mer du Nord

Figure 1: Division of the territory in Belgium

The powers with respect to environmental protection are assigned to the different regions. In Belgium, CCS
implementation is thus mainly a matter of the regions.

The powers with respect to energy policy are distributed among the federal and regional governments, as
shown in Figure 2.

Federal government Regional governments

Security of supply

National indicative investment plans for gas
and electricity (in collaboration with the
CREG, the federal regulator)

Nuclear fuel cycles and related R&D
programmes

Large stockholding installations

Production and transmission/transport of
energy (including electricity grid >70 kV),
including large storage infrastructure

Tariffs and prices

Energy statistics and balances (national)

Product standards

Distribution and transmission of electricity (electricity
grid ≤70 kV)

Public distribution of natural gas

District heating equipment and networks

New and renewable sources of energy (except nuclear)

Energy R&D (except nuclear)

Recovery of waste from industry or other uses for
energy generation purposes

Promotion of the rational use of energy

Use of firedamp (coal bed methane) and blast furnace
gas

Valorisation of slag heap

Energy statistics and balances (regional)

Figure 2: Distribution of Energy Policy Powers in Belgium

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 3

1.2. National context about CCS

No large-scale CCS-project for power plants is expected in Belgium in the coming years. Some regional R&D
initiatives have however taken place these last years and an extensive study “Policy Support System for Carbon
Capture and Storage (PSS - CCS)”, commissioned by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office [1] includes a lot
of facts and analyses about CCS.

1.3. Energy production: energy mix: present and future

Trends from the Federal Planning Bureau [2] are used as the most recent and relevant study containing
projections figures for 2020.

Figure 3 shows that, in the 20/20 target scenario, the Belgian Gross Inland Consumption (GIC) follows a
slowed down growth path. In 1990, it reached 48 Mtoe. Between 1990 and 2000, fast growth set in. After
2000, the surge levels off and by 2020 GIC is expected to reach 56 Mtoe.

Throughout this period, solids loose much of their quantitative and relative weight (from a share of 22% in
1990, they fall down to 11% in 2020). Nuclear energy shares this loss due to the beginning of the nuclear
phase-out (dealt with in the corresponding 2003 law). Meanwhile, natural gas manages to pick up the lost
shares and is able to expand from 17% to 28%, as well as, however to a far lesser extent, renewable energy
sources, which, in 2020, represent in this scenario 10% of GIC, up from 2% in 1990.

In the Climate-Energy Package 20/20 scenario, the Federal Planning Bureau estimates that Renewable energy
will reach 12.3 % of gross final energy consumption (the European target for Belgium is 13 %).

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1990 2000 2010 2020

Solids Oil Natural gas Nuclear Renewable energy forms

Figure 3 Trends in Gross Inland Consumption by fuel (ktoe) in Belgium, 20/20 target [Source:
PRIMES, FPB (2008)]

Power generation [3]

In 2006, the net electricity production in Belgium reached 82 TWh (Figure 4). Belgium needs to import part of
its electricity (the total electricity demand was 86054 GWh).

Type of power plant GWh %

Nuclear 44315 54.1
Natural gas 21103 25.8
Multi-fuels 8841 10.8
Biomass and waste 3039 3.7
Thermal
Coal 1441 1.8
Other 1039 1.3
Fuel oil 142 0.2
Hydroelectric Power plants 1614 2.0
Wind 359 0.4
Solar 2 0.0
TOTAL of electricity production 81894

Figure 4: Net electricity production in Belgium (2006). [3]

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 4

Trends in Power generation [2]

In 2020 under 20/20 target scenario, 107 TWh will be consumed. This boils down to an average annual growth
of 1.3% over the period 2005-2020.

In order to satisfy demand, production has to follow. The breakdown of the net electricity generation is set out
in the Figure 5.

100.0
RES
90.0 RES

80.0 Gas

70.0
Oil
Gas
60.0 Solids

50.0
Oil
40.0 Solids
30.0
Nuclear
20.0
Nuclear
10.0

0.0
2005 2020

Figure 5: Net Electricity generation (%) in 2005 and 2020 in Belgium, 20/20 target scenario
[Source: PRIMES, FPB (2008)]

A significant change in shares can be noticed: more gas and renewables are used, the share of solid fuels
somewhat increases, while the share of both oil and nuclear energy declines.

In this scenario, coal should remain economically interesting in the energy mix, but only if local costly
constraints are not imposed on emissions. Furthermore, from now to 2020, half of the power plants will have
to be replaced.

1.4. CO2 emissions: present and future

Inventory of CO2 emissions [4]

Figure 6 shows the past trend of CO2 emissions in Belgium.

Belgium CO2 emissions in Mt

130

125

120

115

110

105
90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
CO2 in Mton
117 120 117 116 121 122 126 120 127 121 122 121 121 125 125 123 118 113

Figure 6: Belgium CO2 emissions 1990-2007 (incl. LULUCF - Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry).
Source: from data in [4]

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 5

Emission trends [6]

CO2 emissions in Belgium are projected to increase by 11% in 2020, compared to 2006, to reach 133 Mt. With
the implementation of additional measures, the amount of GHG expected in 2020 could be reduced by about
11.1 Mton CO2 eq.

Year 2006 Year 2020

Mt CO2
(inventory 2009) (projection)
Energy 109.030 120.242
fuel combustion 108.898 102.122
energy industries 27.657 39.254
manufact. ind. and construction 27.438 25.392
transport 25.193 25.014
commercial/residential/agric 28.481 30.361
other 0.129 0.102
fugitive emissions from fuels 0.132 0.120
Industrial process 9.977 12.369
Waste 0.078 0.085
TOTAL 119.085 132.695

CO2 from industry [1]

Figure 7 shows that a large part of the total CO2 emissions from industrial sources becomes available in
volumes of CO2 of over 500 kt. Almost two-third of the CO2 emissions in the power sector stem from sources
that emit over 500 kt CO2 per year.

70

60

Refinery
Total CO2 emissions (Mton)

50 Power
Lime
Iron & Steel
40
Glass
Ethylene Oxide
30
Ethylene
Chemical
20 Cement
Ammonia

10

0
0-100 kt 100-200 kt 200-300 kt 300-400 kt 400-500 kt >500 kt

Figure 7: Volume of CO2 streams per size class [modified from 1]

The properties of the CO2 stream that could be input to a capture process are important, the size and costs of
the capture technology to be applied are highly dependent on it. In general, a high concentration of CO2 in the
flue gas or off-gas tends to reduce the specific costs of CO2 capture. Less conditioning and purification steps are
needed for pure sources of CO2. Figure 8 provides an overview of the total CO2 emissions split up according to
the amount of CO2 in their product gas.

18

16

14
Total CO2 emissions (Mton)

12

10

0
3% 8% 10% 12% 15% 16% 20% 30% 100%
Pe rce ntage CO2 in the flue gas

Figure 8: Total CO2 emissions of industry in Belgium according to the concentration in the flue gas
[modified from 1]

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 6

1.5. Storage: possibilities with respect to underground storage [1]

Based on the available existing well descriptions and petrophysical analyses, four potential target intervals for
geological CO2 storage in Flanders have been identified (Figure 9). These are:
• the chalks of the earliest Tertiary to Upper Cretaceous (Houthem and Maastricht Formations);
• the Buntsandstein Formation;
• the Neeroeteren Formation;
• karstified and fractured intervals within the Carboniferous Limestone Group.

Figure 9: CO2 storage potential in Flanders [1]

Potential sink options in the Walloon Region were in a first stage selected on the basis of general geological
requirements for CO2 geological storage. Based on this screening, two types of favourable geological settings
have been found suitable for CO2 sequestration in the Walloon Region, namely:
• the coal deposits extending from the Hainaut to Namur :
o Storage in (unmined) coal deposits: the calculation for this base case results in an average
total CO2 sequestration potential of 1.56 Mt/km². Combining selected areas and capacity
assessment per unit surface in the 700-1300m depth range yields an average total estimate
of the storage potential in unmined coal deposits of about 700 Mt CO2.
o Storage in coal mines: the mining areas are of interest because of the large void space, but
have the disadvantage of special seal requirements. The selected coal mines (5) are
estimated to have a storage capacity of a few tens of Mt CO2.
• some minor potential sites near Huy and Liège and the Dinantian geothermal aquifer in Southern Belgium:
results from the evaluation of the Dinantian aquifer give a total of 800 to 1300 Mt CO2 that could be stored.
Omitting the contribution of the dipping compartment, which is more likely to allow the CO2 to migrate to
the surface, the storage capacity is lowered to 300-500Mt in the deep, tabular compartment (with only 180-
270Mt under areas that are still on the Belgian territory). Although accessibility factor determination and
modelling of lateral migration of CO2 is needed for going significantly further in the evaluation of the Hainaut
Dinantian aquifer, the overall comparison with other storage projects in tabular (and dipping) carbonate
aquifers is very encouraging.

In conclusion, notwithstanding possible competition of sites for different uses, Belgium’s storage potential is still
uncertain in terms of available capacity, environmental requirements and economical efficiency, as shown in
Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Figure 10 Capacity estimates for all reservoirs in Belgium in function of costs and probability.
Storage capacity per year, depending on the storage cost and an uncertainty factor. For example, in
an intermediate case with a CO2 storage price of 15€ per ton, the storage potential in Belgium is about 10 Mton
per year [1].

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 7

Storage price = 15 €/ton

250
200
150
Frequency

100
50
0

0 20 40 60 80

Storage capacity in Mton per year

Figure 11 Capacity estimates for all reservoirs in Belgium in function of costs and probability.
Storage capacity per year for a storage price of 15 €/ton, with a maximum probability of about 10
Mton/year. [1]

The location of the major emission points and potential storage sites is presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Major CO2 emission points in Belgium [10]

Transport and storage of CO2 outside Belgium (The Netherlands, France and Germany) could cost about €4 to 6
per ton of CO2. Storage in the North Sea is considerably more expensive than in the neighbouring countries and
could cost about €8 to 11 per ton, despite the higher volumes which are supposed to be supplied to the
transport system from surrounding countries [1].

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 8

1.6. Energy-related industry [4]

Energy production in Belgium does not involve domestic fossil fuel anymore (see Figure 13), and is now,
following the IEA definition of Domestic Energy Production, largely dominated by nuclear energy (heat from the
7 power plants) and renewable sources (increasing).

Figure 13 Evolution of the energy production in Belgium since 1971 [IEA Statistics]

Main utilities
Electricity & Gas Regulation Bodies:
• At the federal level : Commission pour la Régulation de l’Electricité et du Gaz (CREG) www.creg.be
• At the regional level:
o Flanders : de Vlaamse Reguleringsintstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en gasmarkt (VREG)
www.vreg.be
o Wallonia : Commission Wallonne pour l'Energie (CWaPE) www.cwape.be
o Brussels : Bruxelles Gaz Electricité (BRUGEL) www.brugel.be

Transmission System Operators:

o Electricity : SA Elia System Operator (ELIA) www.elia.be
o Gas: FLUXYS is the independent operator of both the natural gas transport, transit and
storage infrastructure in Belgium. The company also operates the LNG terminal in Zeebrugge
and the Zeebrugge Hub, one of the leading international short-term natural gas markets in
continental Europe www.fluxyx.be

Distribution System Operators are represented in Synergrid, the Federation of system operators
www.synergrid.be. Detailed information on energy operators for Wallonia on www.icedd.be/atlasenergie.

Oil [7]

Figure 14 Refining capacities in Belgium (31/12/2008) in ktons/year [Belgian Oil Federation]

Imported oil is refined in 4 refineries and their products are distributed by 6 large companies (those 10 major
players are represented by the Belgian Oil Federation1) and by a lot of small independent distributors (BELGIAN
FEDERATION OF FUEL SUPPLIERS www.brafco.be).

1
Members of are: Belgian Refining Corporation, Belgian Shell, Delek Belgium, Esso Belgium, Division ExxonMobil Petroleum &
Chemical, Kuwait Petroleum Belgium, LUKOIL Belgium, Petroplus Refining Antwerp, Petroplus Refining Antwerp Bitumen, TOTAL
Belgium S.A., TOTAL Raffinaderij Antwerpen S.A., Vopak Chemicals Logistics Belgium S.A.

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 9

Natural gas
The Belgian consumption of natural gas amounts to 195.000 GWh in 2007, with imports from The Netherlands
(40%), Norway (33 %), Qatar (13 %), UK (5 %), Russia (4 %) and Algeria (2 %) [9]. Gas is imported by ship
through the Zeebrugge gas terminal or through onshore / offshore pipelines linking Belgium with its close
neighbours and the UK. Main gas suppliers are ENI-Distrigas, Electrabel and GDF-SUEZ. Other operators are
E.ON, EDF-Belgium, ESSENT, GASSCO, LAMPIRIS, NUON, SPE-LUMINUS and WINGAS [8].

Coal
The coal consumption has decreased each year since 2000 due to the decline of the iron industry and the
switch to gas in power stations. Since the closing of the last Belgian coal mine in 1992, all solid fuels have
been imported, mainly from Australia (31 %), USA (23%), South Africa (22 %), Russia (14%) and EU (3 %)
[9]. In the future, it’s not excluded that so-called “supercritical” coal-fired power plants could be built in
Belgium.

Main energy-intensive industry [1]

Ecofys has been asked to provide an updated inventory of Belgium’s industrial CO2 sources. The industries
investigated are ammonia, cement, ethylene, hydrogen, iron & steel, power, refineries, other chemicals, lime
and glass. The data on industrial sources of CO2 are summarized in a database that can easily be accessed and
used in the Policy Support System to identify least cost options for carbon capture and storage (Figure 15).

100

90

80
Number of installations

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
ss

en

s
e
ia

er
e
t

er
de
er
en

ee
en

ie
m
on

la

ap
og

er
th

xi

St

Li
em

yl

Po
m

P
(o

dr

fin
h

&
C
Am

Et

&
ne

Hy
s

Re
n
al

p
I ro
le

ul
ic

hy

P
m

Et
he
C

Figure 15: Number of large CO2 emitting industries in Belgium [modified from 1]

1.7. Government: main ministries that deal with CCS

At the federal level:
• Federal Public Service Economy & Energy (http://economie.fgov.be/fr/consommateurs/Energie/index.jsp).
• Federal Public Service Environment, National Climate Commission – working group on the CCS Directive
(www.climat.be).
• Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (www.belspo.be).

At the Regional level:

• Wallon Public Service (Environment and Energy)
o http://environnement.wallonie.be/
o http://air.wallonie.be
o http://energie.wallonie.be
• Flemish Region: Environmental, Nature and Energy Department (www.lne.be).
• Brussels Institute for the Environment IBGE (www.ibgebim.be).

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 10

2 R&D
2.1 Private research
Private companies show an interest in CCS technologies (Electrabel, E.ON, NUON Belgium, FEBEG (Belgian
Federation of Electricity & Gas Enterprises), Agoria (Federation for the technology industry), Laborelec SPRT,
FEBELIEC (Belgian Federation of Large Industrial Energy Consumers), GSV (Groupement de la Sidérurgie -
Staalindustrie Verbond – Steel & Iron industry Association).

2.2 Public & private partnership for research

The Institut Scientifique de Service Public (ISSEP in Wallonia), in cooperation with 4 large industries (Arcelor
Mittal, CBR Heidelberg, Electabel, Duferco) and other SMEs, has set up Ecotechnopôle (ETP Wallonie) that aims
to produce low carbon energy: it is involved in European project research on CCS and coal gasification to
produce hydrogen. Contact: Christian Meyers (christian.meyers@heidelbergcement.com) or P. Landuyt
(p.landuyt@issep.be).

2.3 Public research

A national-scale R&D-project is supported by the Belgian Science Policy Office: Science for a sustainable
development research programme – PSS-CCS project. 4 research centres collaborate:
o Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Geological Survey of Belgium (geology –
storage capacity – policy support system)
o Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO) (geology- storage capacities in Flanders)
o Liege University (ULg) – capture technology
o Faculté Polytechnique de Mons (FPMs) Basic and Applied Geology Department – Geology,
storage capacities in Walloon region.
The main R&D programmes are described in the following table.

LIFETIME PROGRAMME TOTAL LINKS & CONTACTS

(Start – (theme, projects) BUDGET
End)
15/12/2005- Policy Support System for Carbon Capture €715.000. Project website:
14/12/2007 and Storage (PSS - CCS) www.PSS-CCS.be
• Development of an economic-environmental around 15
Extended : simulator that will attempt realistic researchers Coordinator:
until predictions regarding the impact growth and
31/01/2011 cost of CCS between 2010 and 2050. Kris Piessens
• Delivery of concrete simulations. Royal Belgian Institute of
• Inventorying the geological storage potential Natural Sciences
in Flanders and the Walloon Region. Geological Survey of
• The setting-up of a methodology for risk Belgium
evaluation of geological sites; inventorying Jennerstraat 13
the current and expected sources of CO2 in B-1000 Brussels
Belgium. Tel:+32 (0)2 788 76 34
Kris.Piessens@naturalsciences.be
• The development of an ad-hoc routing
application for pipeline trajectories and
networks of pipelines.
• Inventorying the technologies that are partners: VITO, FPMs, ULg
related to the capture and compression of
CO2.
• Collaboration with the Netherlands (CATOII
project) for exchange of data to assess
storage possibilities of Belgian CO2 in the
Netherlands.
Start 2009 Geleen project (south of the Netherlands) M€30 VITO
The CO2 from an ammonia plant is injected at a
depth of about 1800 meters into chalk
sandstone layers that are situated under the
coal layers, at a pressure of about 100 bar.
Eventually all of the CO2 that is injected will be
chemically and physically bound. The project is
split into two phases. During the first phase a
small amount of about 10 kiloton’s CO2 will be
injected into the storage reservoir. If the initial
tests prove successful, the CO2 storage project
will be scaled up to store 2 million tons of CO2
over a period of 10 years.

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 11

Start: Monitoring & verification of Enhanced M€2.67 FPMs

November coalbed Methane (EC MOVECBM project) Guy DE WEIRELD (Prof.)
2006 To improve the current understanding of CO2 THERMODYNAMICS, Rue de
Sixth
Duration: injected in coal and, hence, the migration of Houdain 9, MONS
Framework
2 years methane thus ensuring a long-term reliable and Tel:+32-65374203
Programme
safe storage. Work performed that is based on
parameters of the previously investigated test
ELECTRABEL (end-user)
site in Poland by the EC RECOPOL project.

http://www.movecbm.eu/
Start date: Reduction of CO2 emission by means of CO2 €3.739.507 FPMs (end-user)
2001-11-01 storage in coal seams in the Silesian Coal Descamps F, Legrain H,
Basin of Poland (RECOPOL Project) Fifth Tshibangu K JP
End date: At a selected location in Poland a pilot Framework
2005-07-31 installation was developed for methane gas Programme http://recopol.nitg.tno.nl/index.shtml
production from coal beds while simultaneously
storing CO2 underground. The produced
methane could become an alternative fuel that
can be locally produced in Silesia. This
installation is the very first of its kind in Europe.
Start date: Participation in the GESTCO project: M€3.76 Michiel Dusar
2000-03-01 Geological Storage of CO2 from Combustion of Royal Belgian Institute of
Fossil Fuel. EU 5th FP R&D project ENK6-CT- Natural Sciences
Fifth
End date: 1999-00010 Geological Survey of
Framework
2003-03-01 Belgium
Programme
Jennerstraat 13
B-1000 Brussels
Tel:+32 (0)2 788 76 32
Michiel.Dusar@naturalsciences.be

3 Implementation
3.1. Industry
Companies have a company-based approach, generally broader than the territory of Belgium. For example
[11, 12], the GDF-SUEZ group is actively present and acquiring competencies in complete value chain of CCS
and hands-on experience in pilots in NL, FR, DK and DE. Partnerships are common: for example, the mobile
pilot plant for CO2 capture by HPE, E.ON, GDF SUEZ–Electrabel.

A new coal-fired power plant (1100 MW) is foreseen in Antwerp with a capture-ready installation; permit
applications are pending but opposition is rising (summer 2009).

3.2. Reported national barriers to implementation

• Need to deepen our knowledge of geology in order to better quantify the assumed potential of storage:
what is really available from a technical and economic point of view, keeping in mind environmental safety.
• Too much scattering of information at different levels of power and different institutes/research centres.
Formerly the Geological Survey of Belgium was a coordinator in this kind of research but with reorganization
of research at the different levels of power, the information is now fragmented.
• Need to regulate / give a legal framework to the underground exploitation (old mines concessions: security
checks are needed before closing the sites. Parcelling makes procedures complicated).
• Need to ensure the safety and quality of deep drinking water reservoirs.
• Need to manage the conflict with other uses of the underground (limited capacity):

Storage of natural gas (Belgium faces undercapacity for mandatory gas stocks)

Geothermal applications

Possible future (re)exploitation of coal

Exploitation of methane.
Authorities investigate and decide what uses are most beneficial for society from an environmental and
economic point of view.

4 Public acceptance
There is very little awareness in the large public. Belgian environmental organisations follow the issue and are
mostly critical.

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM

26/10/2009 12

5 Government policy
Transposition of the EU CCS Directive by the Regions is in progress. The Flemish Region has already
transposed most of the EU CCS Directive with the Flemish Parliament Decree of May 8, 2009, regarding the
deep underground. Before this decree can enter into force, an implementing decree by the Flemish Government
is still needed. The Walloon Region, the Brussels-Capital Region and the federal authority (for the North Sea
territory) have also started working on the transposition of the CCS Directive. At this stage, it is not certain that
all regional and federal entities will allow geological storage of CO2 on their territory.

At this moment, the different regional and federal governments seem rather reluctant to (co)finance large-scale
CCS demonstration projects on their territory. However, Belgium actively supports EU financing of CCS
demonstration projects in its neighbouring countries and the rest of the EU, provided that a wide portfolio of
capture, transport and storage technologies is demonstrated, and that knowledge is shared among all member
states.

6 Lessons for ZEP

The stakeholders’ meeting organised in Belgium in June 2009 (“Electricity Production & CCS in Belgium) was an
opportunity to collect different opinions on the (future) development of CCS in Belgium.

Everyone agrees that both the reduction of the CO2 emissions and security of energy supply address a portfolio
of technologies, but that Belgium first needs to invest more in energy efficiency (no-regret policy) as well as
renewable energy.

Being not a fossil fuel producer, Belgium is not a pioneer in the field of CCS, and its underground doesn’t
appear to present a huge potential for carbon storage, acknowledging there is today a gap in the knowledge of
the underground to be able to assess the real potential for CCS as well as other applications. But we have to
keep the door open to capture of CO2 from industries and for exportation of CO2.

6.1 What can ETP-ZEP learn from Belgium?

• Belgium is in favour of international research and demonstration projects in order to obtain more data
and information, but that it has not and will not be a pioneering country on this topic. It however does wish
to keep the option of CCS open for both power production and for other industries.
• In industry: there is a place for CCS projects, but Belgium has to be in a level playing field with clear rules.
• Thinking in terms of relations with its neighbouring countries, Belgium could become an exporter of CO2.
• The complexity of the authorisation process could discourage the launch of demo projects.

6.2 What opportunities does Belgium offer to ETP-ZEP?

• Belgium encourages the Flagship program of the Commission as we need to get more information and
data on the whole process, from capture to storage, before to go further.
• It’s too late for Belgium to initiate CCS demo projects under the current EU supported Flagship program as
regards storage. But Belgium is prepared to examine actions in cross-border transport of CO2.
• Belgium has an expertise that can be shared on industrial risk management (in the field of nuclear
energy).

6.3 Which problems in Belgium need to be addressed by ETP-ZEP?

• CO2 transport: Storage potential is weak in comparison with our neighbouring countries. We therefore
deem it important to work on the design of a CO2 transport network at the European level: harmonisation
and international legislation are not ready.
• Capture-ready: Belgium will closely follow the Flagship programme and wants to have a debate on capture
readiness (or not) for new power plants. Investors need to have a level playing field and clear guidelines,
also on financial provisions related to the “readiness”. See also the link with the IPPC and the « best
available technology ».
• Purity of flue gas: Pollutants could affect drinking water reservoirs. A level-playing field in Europe is also
necessary to set purity standards on CO2.
• Employment: Evaluating the impact of CCS on employment.
• Acceptance: Exchanging best practices and taking into account the social acceptability of storage sites.
• Transposition of CCS Directive: Having a level-playing field: it could be interesting to exchange ideas on
implementation among member states.
• Legal issues: Financial provisions for the long term storage and potential leaks or incidents.

ZEP Country Profile BELGIUM